Legal bid to remove anti-Islam film from YouTube denied

Actor complained that her privacy had been invaded, life threatened.

A judge in Los Angeles on Thursday denied a request to remove the offensive, anti-Islamic film "Innocence of Muslims" from YouTube, which has lead to many violent protests around the globe.

Tragically, last week, the violence caused the death of four American government employees in Libya. Meanwhile, Google took the unusual step of blocking access to the film in Libya, Egypt, and Malaysia. The government of Afghanistan also disabled access from its end. However, the film is still available in most of the world.

Cindy Lee Garcia, an actor who starred in the film, claimed that she was deceived into accepting the role, and has received death threats as a result. She filed suit Wednesday, asking for a temporary restraining order.

She accused the film’s producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka “Sam Bacile,” of fraud and slander, and charged YouTube and its parent company Google with violations of her privacy and endangerment to her own life.

Google’s legal counsel argued that the rights of an actor do not trump the public’s right to perceive whatever it wants.

"If we viewed it that way we'd say that Arnold Schwarzenegger as a cyborg in 'Terminator' was a factual statement about Arnold Schwarzenegger," Timothy Alger, a lawyer for Google, told Reuters.

162 Reader Comments

This film could be a watershed moment for the world. It could have opened the proverbial Pandora's Box and now everyone and their lolcat will make references of Muhammed and keep it going until everyone is desensitized to it... either that or we'll end up in WWIII and it'll get sorted out over a billion dead bodies.

Other people have hinted at it, but I'll be the first to say it. No, we have not been more than willing to make peace. The anger isn't just over some stupid video (that'smuch more offensive than the life of brian, btw). Its over murder and violation of sovereignty in the form of drone strikes. Its over the.complete one sided support of Israeli apartheid. Its over the support and military aid for the past 50 years of military dictatorship, the very same dictatorships that were toppled by the Arab spring.

If that's the case, then there is absolutely no benefit - not even a goodwill benefit - to censoring ourselves per WOC's suggestion.

I agree. I don't want western governments to censor western citizens. I do expect private companies like Google to show some sensitivity towards islamophobia; the very same sensitivity shown towards antisemitism.

Kudos to Google for standing up for free speech. The film is no more insulting than Monty Python's brilliant Life of Brian was to Christians, which not result in any murders.

You really think it's the religion at fault don't you.

One side made a laughably bad video denigrating a religion -- a video that no one said a word about for 6 months until 9/11 when suddenly... The other side riots in the streets by the millions and murders four US citizens -- on US soil -- including a FREAKING AMBASSADOR! You're not seriously going to argue that this is somehow the fault of someone exercising free (if distasteful) speech six months before the event, which just coincidentally occurs on 9/11 are you? It's hard to even argue that the video was anything other than a cover for an assassination. If they didn't use this video, they'd have found something else to use instead.

Hate speech, as much as you or I may dislike its content, IS protected speech. Incitement to riot is not, but there is NOTHING in the video asking anyone to riot. It's a predictable result, but making something illegal simply because people might overreact and riot is absurd. "Yeah, team A won the game, but we gave team B extra points so the home fans wouldn't riot." "X won the election, but people might riot, so he had to bow out and give the position to Y." A policy like that would give anyone willing to merely THREATEN to riot absolute authority over anything they chose.

It would be reasonable to assume, by your view of the world, that said douchebag created the movie with the full authority of his nation, so a huge amount of anger would absolutely be justified

The anger may be justified, the violence is not. I get angry pretty much every time some jackwagon cuts me off in traffic, but I don't pull a gun and shoot them over it. That's part of what being a civilized person is all about. Get as mad as you want about the video, but the second that crosses into invading another nation's embassy or raping and murdering a U.S. Ambassador, you lose the right to call yourself a civilized person.

The next thing to ask is what is the best way to get to a point where there isn't anything to blame them for, i.e. where religious tensions are NOT so tightly strained that a stupid movie will incite people to kill in retaliation? I would argue that it's not by releasing a stupid movie that will likely get people killed in retaliation. Instead that will only further polarize people on both sides of the issue, especially in those tinderbox areas of the world. It will make them less likely to be open and discuss issues rationally and more likely to dismiss efforts to make peace with each other and come to mutual understanding, respect, and tolerance.

An open and rational discussion predicated on the assumption that we will engage in self-censorship is simply not acceptable. We have been and remain more than willing to make peace, providing they understand that they will have to put up with speech they do not like. That is absolutely a prerequisite, and backing down on it would simply imply a promise we cannot and will not keep.

Other people have hinted at it, but I'll be the first to say it. No, we have not been more than willing to make peace. The anger isn't just over some stupid video (that'smuch more offensive than the life of brian, btw). Its over murder and violation of sovereignty in the form of drone strikes. Its over the.complete one sided support of Israeli apartheid. Its over the support and military aid for the past 50 years of military dictatorship, the very same dictatorships that were toppled by the Arab spring.

Also, great point that the only deaths of westernerers over this.video were due to a terrorist attack. Not due to protest.

To those saying that Muslims are subhuman, people will violently protest over much less in the west. Case in point, the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots.

I'd say thank you for putting things into context. US/"Westerm"-"islamic" relations didn't start a September 11.

I'd like just to point out that Gulf states, whose faschistic (as in political and social phenomenon) take of Islam has become the only Halal (as in kosher) version of Islam, enjoy a silent support from the Western powers, who probaly couldn't thank them enough fro their support against the soviets outside and the socialists/marxists inside the "arab world". Just to name another dramatic involvement, we can talk about the toppling of Iranian nationalist (and democratically elected) Mossadegh, that opened a can of worms known as the "islamic revolution" which would be irrelevant to the history save for the fact that it was a new "exportable islamist" ideology, and inspired other local (sunni and more numerous) islamists to go global.

On another note, the labelling of a minority of (armed and trained) islamist crinimals as "The Muslims" in almost every discussion (for a pop. roughly 1 billion, a few dozens of differnets languages, cultures and nationalities) is actually more insulting than the video itself and more revealing about the limitations of the "western brainpower" when dealing with a borderless, raceless and phenomenon lacking a centralized institution. This maybe explains why some people are getting confused by (absolutely rightly) being outraged by the violent reaction of a minority over an _opinion_ (the video) and (paradoxally) morally judging or condemning the right of the majority of muslims to be shocked or disapprove of feel insulted, *denying* them to have an *opinion*....

Finally, my personnal opinion as a "muslim" is that fact about this religion were lost during the first 100 years of islam, when Othman (2nd self-appointed Khalif) assembled an official version of Koran and burned the rest, and we're not even talking about Muhammad's biography and the Sunna, that are messed up (anything goes). Basically "Islam", after having missed the opportunity of its Golden Age, is condemned, and this particularly since the 1900, of becoming a proxy for political influence, and this for any foreign power (Gulf states influence is also technically foreign to other _culturally distinct_ Arabic or central Asian countries). To sum it up: it's beyond repair.

I'll take up the gauntlet to all the replies to the original OP( who replied and expressed his/her opinion clearly and well, and I am in now way stating what I am going to say is what they think or tried to say )...No, you can't equate their intelligence to bees. The bees are more rational in their behavior; they were attacked. The people involved here are a horde of primitive morons that lack the higher brains of intelligent modern humans. The very fact that they instantly fly into a rage over anything is enough to exempt them from any respect or consideration as such. In this case, the "anything" is centered around beliefs that came from uneducated desert tribesmen from over a *millennium* ago. Read that again.Flying into a blind, murderous rage is not a trait of an evolved human. Entire societies that, in 2012, revolve around a primitive belief system, despite all the knowledge available to enlighten them, indeed that condemn and destroy that knowledge are not worthy of respect. With luck, maybe disease will wipe them out and spare the world the misery they create.

Well thanks for misinterpreting me. No, that's not at all what I was trying to say. I'm simply pointing out that it's easy to be an iconoclastic jackass doing decidedly dangerous things when there's very little chance of you being on the receiving end of the consequences. And yes, given what happened just two years ago when another jackass decided to burn the Koran, there was certainly a reasonable expectation that releasing this kind of film would provoke violence. Most people living in such backwards societies that haven't been able to afford them the benefits of the Enlightenment don't deserve your contempt, they deserve your empathy and understanding. Reserve your contempt for the cynical forces on every side that seek to keep them mired in ignorance and a state of intolerance.

pusher robot wrote:

An open and rational discussion predicated on the assumption that we will engage in self-censorship is simply not acceptable.

Do you go out of your way to be understanding and tolerant of people that are unapologetically antagonistic towards you? Would you be more likely to pay attention to and consider the arguments of someone engaging you in a calm and rational manner or someone calling you an idiot after every sentence? They may think you are an idiot, but chances are if they treat you with a modicum of respect you are likely to pay more attention and listen to what they have to say than if they constantly berate you and mock you. Also, what hestermofet said.

hestermofet wrote:

pusher robot wrote:

Quote:

The next thing to ask is what is the best way to get to a point where there isn't anything to blame them for, i.e. where religious tensions are NOT so tightly strained that a stupid movie will incite people to kill in retaliation? I would argue that it's not by releasing a stupid movie that will likely get people killed in retaliation. Instead that will only further polarize people on both sides of the issue, especially in those tinderbox areas of the world. It will make them less likely to be open and discuss issues rationally and more likely to dismiss efforts to make peace with each other and come to mutual understanding, respect, and tolerance.

An open and rational discussion predicated on the assumption that we will engage in self-censorship is simply not acceptable. We have been and remain more than willing to make peace, providing they understand that they will have to put up with speech they do not like. That is absolutely a prerequisite, and backing down on it would simply imply a promise we cannot and will not keep.

Other people have hinted at it, but I'll be the first to say it. No, we have not been more than willing to make peace. The anger isn't just over some stupid video (that'smuch more offensive than the life of brian, btw). Its over murder and violation of sovereignty in the form of drone strikes. Its over the.complete one sided support of Israeli apartheid. Its over the support and military aid for the past 50 years of military dictatorship, the very same dictatorships that were toppled by the Arab spring.

Also, great point that the only deaths of westernerers over this.video were due to a terrorist attack. Not due to protest.

To those saying that Muslims are subhuman, people will violently protest over much less in the west. Case in point, the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots.

I also think it's worth pointing out that if the religion itself was the problem, we'd expect some of the millions of Muslims in the US and Europe to react the same way as those in other parts of the world. That the reaction here and in Europe has been far more satirical tells me that it's not really down to whether someone is Muslim or not. Obviously there's more at work here, and trying to distill things down to just a problem specific to Islam (or even specific to religion) is faulty thinking.

Do you go out of your way to be understanding and tolerant of people that are unapologetically antagonistic towards you? Would you be more likely to pay attention to and consider the arguments of someone engaging you in a calm and rational manner or someone calling you an idiot after every sentence? They may think you are an idiot, but chances are if they treat you with a modicum of respect you are likely to pay more attention and listen to what they have to say than if they constantly berate you and mock you.

First, LOL at this, after some of your contributions to global warming threads. But seriously, since we've already established that the actual grievances are over other issues, self-censorship only sends a false message - convenient in the short run, maybe, as an act of appeasement, but not representative of a reality on which to build long-term peace.

Should the film be declared illegal, outlawed, or banned? Nope. Absolutely not. Do the filmmakers bear some responsibility for inciting religious violence? Probably not from a legal standpoint, but it's hard to argue that they're completely blameless, especially given the precedent set in even recent history. They had to know what would likely happen and they went ahead anyway. It's not entirely different from yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater from an ethical standpoint. It was stupid and irresponsible of them and the only reason they felt they could get away with it is because they're embedded in a culture that stridently protects people with unpopular views; meanwhile the very places where Islamic violence is high has no protections for the innocent people living there.

Artistically, the film was garbage, but if anything, it was a noble act. If significant amounts of Muslims get their burqas in a twist over this, then the proper solution is to keep exposing them to such things until they become desensitized. It's quite easy to see that this works in American culture. Things that made people squeamish decades ago are now commonplace and uncontroversial. Shows can contain more violence and sexual content without conflict than what caused trouble in the past. The few exceptions relate mostly to the things that the FCC has long regulated on broadcast television, such as profanity and nudity.

Daros wrote:

You're looking at this from a terribly Western worldview. You need to open your mind a bit.

Picture this: you have spent your life from birth in a nation where the media is state controlled. You are given your information from the government, films are vetted by the government... everything you see is sanctioned and controlled. Another nation, one that, let's be honest, is at the very least antagonistic with your region of the world, gives its citizens the freedom to produce whatever the hell they want, so some douchebag creates a movie that is 100% hate speech against your religion. It would be reasonable to assume, by your view of the world, that said douchebag created the movie with the full authority of his nation, so a huge amount of anger would absolutely be justified.

I am not excusing the murder of embassy workers. I am merely trying to get you to open up your narrow worldview just a little.

So, we have to open up our worldview to the ignorance of others? They are factually wrong. Also, I'm sure a great number of those that angrily protested put more time and effort into their signs than that film received. They need to just get some thicker skin.

masterbinky wrote:

LLJKCicero wrote:

Wheels Of Confusion wrote:

Bees are aggressive when provoked. To demonstrate this, I'm going to throw this rock at that beehive from a safe distance and watch it react aggressively on that unlucky kid who's standing next to it. *throws rock**other kid gets stung by swarm of bees* See? We should really do something about this bee problem.

So...Muslims are bees?

What's important is whether they make honey or not.

So, you're saying that we should claim we have evidence that bees have stingers of mass destruction? Sorry, someone had to.

Kudos to Google for standing up for free speech. The film is no more insulting than Monty Python's brilliant Life of Brian was to Christians, which not result in any murders.

You really think it's the religion at fault don't you.

One side made a laughably bad video denigrating a religion -- a video that no one said a word about for 6 months until 9/11 when suddenly... The other side riots in the streets by the millions and murders four US citizens -- on US soil -- including a FREAKING AMBASSADOR! You're not seriously going to argue that this is somehow the fault of someone exercising free (if distasteful) speech six months before the event, which just coincidentally occurs on 9/11 are you? It's hard to even argue that the video was anything other than a cover for an assassination. If they didn't use this video, they'd have found something else to use instead.

Hate speech, as much as you or I may dislike its content, IS protected speech. Incitement to riot is not, but there is NOTHING in the video asking anyone to riot. It's a predictable result, but making something illegal simply because people might overreact and riot is absurd. "Yeah, team A won the game, but we gave team B extra points so the home fans wouldn't riot." "X won the election, but people might riot, so he had to bow out and give the position to Y." A policy like that would give anyone willing to merely THREATEN to riot absolute authority over anything they chose.

As previously noted, the ambassador and staff killed in Libya were not killed by a rock-throwing mob, they were killed by terrorists wielding rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles. That's a very different thing.

The Life of Brian is less offensive because its main character was not the christian avatar. The Last Temptation of Christ is a better example and that movie faced serious protests was banned in several countries and some theaters that showed it were attacked. The thing is that movie could legitimately be called art which is something I have hard time seeing in this film.

Secondly:

Anyone who thinks this type of rage is solely because of a movie is sorely mistaken. Most of the world does not have the quality of life experienced in the US, Canada, UK, Japan, Germany, France so forth. There are a lot of contributing factors here and religion provides a band aid for these things. This film merely showed the type of resentment it masks.

I also think it's worth pointing out that if the religion itself was the problem, we'd expect some of the millions of Muslims in the US and Europe to react the same way as those in other parts of the world. That the reaction here and in Europe has been far more satirical tells me that it's not really down to whether someone is Muslim or not. Obviously there's more at work here, and trying to distill things down to just a problem specific to Islam (or even specific to religion) is faulty thinking.

You seem to forget the threats that were made by some european muslims (among others) when a danish cartoonist drew Mohammed. Also when a dutch filmmaker was murdered over criticisms of the religion, many muslims said he deserved it.

It is wrong to paint everybody with the same brush, but in each of these events you got crowds (not small groups or individuals) calling for the death of a person. It should be noted that there are very few voices of moderation that are respected by all muslims so it is the case that the extremist voices do win out.

No, religion isn't necessarily the problem, but of the culture of those that practice it. Unfortunately, religion play no small part in the culture of those same people.

Also amusing are those that live in european countries, reap the benefits of living in such places and at the same time call for the destruction of the country they call home...

This can easily fixed by more movie people following this venue. As soon as there is no shortage of koran denigrading material those low life creatures would have to target the whole west world. If Sacha Cohen had some balls he would play a certain religious character rather than abstract figure admired by noone.

A judge in Los Angeles on Thursday denied a request to remove the offensive, anti-Islamic film "Innocence of Muslims" from YouTube, which has lead to many violent protests around the globe.

As was suspected when it happened, and then confirmed by the Libya recently, that the attacks were pre-planned and that the video had nothing to do with the attacks but was a convenient excuse.http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161228170 ... ident-says(and many other links... just google it if you want)

People's views on free speech, and rights, and this video, are very interesting though.

I managed to sit through about five minutes of the film. It is shockingly made, terribly acted and badly dubbed. It is clearly intended to incite exactly the response that it has incited.

Should it be banned? No. Not if we believe in free speech. Should the film-maker be prosecuted for incitement to riot? Absolutely. There should be an incredibly heavy book thrown at him, and any willing participants in this disgusting parody of "creativity".

There is such a thing as tolerance, and as someone who absolutely loathes Christianity (having been brought up in a Baptist family), I have to show that tolerance every day. I may not agree with what others believe, but to set out with the intention of publicly ridiculing a group that already finds itself on the defensive internationally is just assholery of the first order.

This movie maker deserves a day in the stocks, subjected to his own public ridicule.

I hate to disagree with so many here, but there is already good precedent for why this should be taken down. There is a well know exception to the first amendment: it does not protect speech that is meant to invoke riots or undue panic. The video incited a riot which lead to the direct death of someone on US soil. There is legal grounds to have the video removed. Not only that, but it lead to an invasion on the US.

Bees are aggressive when provoked. To demonstrate this, I'm going to throw this rock at that beehive from a safe distance and watch it react aggressively on that unlucky kid who's standing next to it. *throws rock**other kid gets stung by swarm of bees* See? We should really do something about this bee problem.

Epic analogy fail.

Way to argue that Muslims are brainless angry insects.

Only those that turn to violence and murder when their feelings gets hurt.

I hate to disagree with so many here, but there is already good precedent for why this should be taken down. There is a well know exception to the first amendment: it does not protect speech that is meant to invoke riots or undue panic. The video incited a riot which lead to the direct death of someone on US soil. There is legal grounds to have the video removed. Not only that, but it lead to an invasion on the US.

What if a group of people publicly declared they would riot if a gay pride parade was held in a town, and then proceeded to riot when the parade happened killing several people. Next year rolls around and people don't want to give in for some reason and decide to hold another parade. Same group as before says they'll riot again... so I guess that parade can never happen again or else its inciting a riot? It's pretty much known that people will die if the parade is held.

And I realize the situation is different... it's easier now to defend gay rights. Not so much the freedom to criticize religion. Go back a few decades and I'm sure a violent riot against a gay pride parade would be blamed on the parade itself.

I hate to disagree with so many here, but there is already good precedent for why this should be taken down. There is a well know exception to the first amendment: it does not protect speech that is meant to invoke riots or undue panic. The video incited a riot which lead to the direct death of someone on US soil. There is legal grounds to have the video removed. Not only that, but it lead to an invasion on the US.

No, there's a very high bar for what is considered unprotected incitement in the U.S., and this doesn't meet it, mainly because the ostensible violence being incited was not imminent.

Bees are aggressive when provoked. To demonstrate this, I'm going to throw this rock at that beehive from a safe distance and watch it react aggressively on that unlucky kid who's standing next to it. *throws rock**other kid gets stung by swarm of bees* See? We should really do something about this bee problem.

So...Muslims are bees?

What's important is whether they make honey or not.

Yes, they do. That is if by "honey", you mean oil, and by "make" you mean happen to live where all the bee hives were built. I guess that makes the US angry bee keepers who want the honey very badly, but for some reason think its ok to kill the bees to get it.

On a side note, I dont blame the Libyans for going after the US embassy. I noticed they mentioned 4 "government employees" were killed as a result of violence erupting over this video. Funny they didnt say "ambassadors" or "clerks for ambassadors". How much you want to bet those 4 "government employees" not embassy employees, actually worked for the CIA? Now, when i say I dont blame, Im not condoning the violence or the killing in any way. But, a population has its breaking point and between the videos and 9/11 asshats making Muslims look like terrorists and the also the US governments covert involvement...EVERYWHERE, sticking their noses in everyone else' politics, at some point the population is going to fight back.

I hate to disagree with so many here, but there is already good precedent for why this should be taken down. There is a well know exception to the first amendment: it does not protect speech that is meant to invoke riots or undue panic. The video incited a riot which lead to the direct death of someone on US soil. There is legal grounds to have the video removed. Not only that, but it lead to an invasion on the US.

I say let them censor their own damn videos. If a country wants to have internet access, then be forewarned, everything you love and hold dear, will be turned into satire, made fun of, bigoted and perverted in every way imaginable. If you dont want to see shit like that, limit your choice of websites that you visit, or get over it already. At the same time, those deaths in Libya are likely not so much a result of the video directly, but rather as a result of US involvement in Muslim politics and the war on "terror" that is actually a war OF terror.

Bees are aggressive when provoked. To demonstrate this, I'm going to throw this rock at that beehive from a safe distance and watch it react aggressively on that unlucky kid who's standing next to it. *throws rock**other kid gets stung by swarm of bees* See? We should really do something about this bee problem.

You seemingly have equated the intelligence of the involved people to that of bees...

The problem with it is that throwing the stone at the hive does not map to the making of a film. Throwing the stone is a physical, destructive act that probably kills a few bees. The bees have a right to get angry if their hive is actually damaged. But that is not the case here. The analogy should be:

An innocent girl stands directly underneath a beehive. A boy 20 feet away tattoos an image of the queen bee on his ass and proceeds to lower his drawers and moon the hive. The bees get terribly insulted that someone has made a visual representatition of their hero and moreover has done so on his ass. The bees go crazy and sting the girl by mistake, thinking that she threw the stone.

But bees don't do this because they don't care about naughty pictures of their queen or where it is located. The bees would behave much more civilly. They would just ignore it. The Muslims knew the diplomat didn't tattoo the queen on his ass, but killed him anyway to get even with the filmmaker who did.

I hate to disagree with so many here, but there is already good precedent for why this should be taken down. There is a well know exception to the first amendment: it does not protect speech that is meant to invoke riots or undue panic. The video incited a riot which lead to the direct death of someone on US soil. There is legal grounds to have the video removed. Not only that, but it lead to an invasion on the US.

What if a group of people publicly declared they would riot if a gay pride parade was held in a town, and then proceeded to riot when the parade killing several Next year rolls around and people 't wan give in for some reason and decide to hold another parade. Same gr before says they'll riot again... so I guess that parade can never happen again or else its inciting a riot? It's pretty much known that people will die if the parade is held.

And I realize the situation is different... it's easier now to defend gay rights. Not so much the freedom to criticize religion. Go back a few decades and I'm sure a violent riot against a gay pride parade would be blamed on the parade itself.

I guess you could call this the murderer's veto.

Nominated for post of the year. Murderer's Veto it is. If the civil rights movement avoided setting off racists, blacks would still have separate bathrooms.

Cindy Lee Garcia, an actor who starred in the film, claimed that she was deceived into accepting the role, and has received death threats as a result.

Why does it seem that it's always the woman's fault, no matter what, in tribal Islam? She gets raped? She gets stoned. The wind blows her hajib off her face? She gets stoned. She's tricked into making some film that offends even her? She gets stoned.

I get that "developed" Islamic countries and communities generally aren't like this, but even in the west, these people bring their bronze-age tribal "honor killing" customs with them. It's increasingly hard to separate the violence of tribal Arabs from Islam because they define themselves in terms of their religion.

I also think it's worth pointing out that if the religion itself was the problem, we'd expect some of the millions of Muslims in the US and Europe to react the same way as those in other parts of the world. That the reaction here and in Europe has been far more satirical tells me that it's not really down to whether someone is Muslim or not. Obviously there's more at work here, and trying to distill things down to just a problem specific to Islam (or even specific to religion) is faulty thinking.

First off:Anyone who thinks this type of rage is solely because of a movie is sorely mistaken. Most of the world does not have the quality of life experienced in the US, Canada, UK, Japan, Germany, France so forth. There are a lot of contributing factors here and religion provides a band aid for these things. This film merely showed the type of resentment it masks.

Most Hindus and Buddhists are poor Third World citizens. Where are their anti-Western mobs?

Hindus and Buddhists have made an informed lifestyle choice that does not require them to feel "insulted" if someone disagrees with them or takes the piss out of their religion. Key word here s CHOICE. Nobody makes people go and make a placard that says "behead the infidels" They choose to do so. They choose to live a perpetual state of volatility and hatred.Hindus and Buddhists are more evolved.

Actress?In any case, regardless of whether the film is hate speech or anything else, nothing - absolutely nothing - justifies some of the reactions we have seen (such as bombing the embassy).

You're looking at this from a terribly Western worldview. You need to open your mind a bit.Picture this: you have spent your life from birth in a nation where the media is state controlled. You are given your information from the government, films are vetted by the government... everything you see is sanctioned and controlled. Another nation, one that, let's be honest, is at the very least antagonistic with your region of the world, gives its citizens the freedom to produce whatever the hell they want, so some douchebag creates a movie that is 100% hate speech against your religion. It would be reasonable to assume, by your view of the world, that said douchebag created the movie with the full authority of his nation, so a huge amount of anger would absolutely be justified.I am not excusing the murder of embassy workers. I am merely trying to get you to open up your narrow worldview just a little.

Here's some Westerner trying to illustrate a Freedom view. Free Speech is VERY important... no matter what. There are consequences for bad speech, such as peaceful protests, boycotts, etc. Murder is not a reasonable consequence. Even for VERY bad speech. As a non-douchebag movie contributor, I would still give my life to protect these movie people from lunatics.

The rest of World that considers murder reasonable for producing, acting, etc in a movie like this are a bunch of a()holes and go fu*k themselves. Your stone age view of right and wrong, excusing murder when anger is probably the correct response, will never be tolerated by freedom loving nations.

The rest of World that considers murder reasonable for producing, acting, etc in a movie like this are a bunch of a()holes and go fu*k themselves. Your stone age view of right and wrong, excusing murder when anger is probably the correct response, will never be tolerated by freedom loving nations.

Yes, and the other guy's point is that murder is justifiable over there for insulting Islam so, the reasoning goes, they feel it should be justifiable over here. This is the view they've been indoctrinated with from birth. While the view itself is unreasonable, the point he's making is that asking them to abandon that view is likewise unreasonable, or at least futile.

Look at the discussions here on Ars when some advancement in the field of science chips away just a little bit more at the idea of the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, let alone Allah. It's futile to appeal to reason, education, enlightenment, what have you, when religion is involved.

Although the film was clearly inflamatory and stupid, it is often hard to see what may or may not provoke a hysterical kill-fest amongst the trouble loving muslims who are prone to kicking off. For instance, Mohamed is I think, the most common male name in the world. So its okay to name your child after him. But definitely not okay to allow a child to call her teddy bear Mohamed. As the teacher found out. I remember at that time there were angry mobs calling for her to be beheaded.And you cannot draw him or portray him in any way. But you can name your kid after him.Islam really need to chill the fuck out and get a grip.

I hate to disagree with so many here, but there is already good precedent for why this should be taken down. There is a well know exception to the first amendment: it does not protect speech that is meant to invoke riots or undue panic. The video incited a riot which lead to the direct death of someone on US soil. There is legal grounds to have the video removed. Not only that, but it lead to an invasion on the US.

That exception is very narrow, and this film doesn't fit that qualification. It's essentially needed to call for a specific action, as in, "Muslims need to shoot rockets at the Libyan embassy on September 11, 2012"

An open and rational discussion predicated on the assumption that we will engage in self-censorship is simply not acceptable. We have been and remain more than willing to make peace, providing they understand that they will have to put up with speech they do not like. That is absolutely a prerequisite, and backing down on it would simply imply a promise we cannot and will not keep.

With all due respect, such arguments are just silly. We self-censor ourselves all the time. You self-censor when you talk to your boss, you self-censor in front of your mother, the entire america media self-censors all the time. You can go to libya, walk onto a busy market and loudly shout "Islam is a violent religion", but I suspect you would self-sensor yourself wisely, since claiming a 'moral' victory doesn't really help you when you are dead.

Censorship is a bad thing, but 'self-censorship' is not an actual thing, it is simply a decision, the very definition of freedom. As the other poster has pointed out very clearly, this video is stupid, the reaction was predictable and it doesn't meet any of the objectives it implicitly pretends to have (I assume to rid the world of islamic inspired violence). People have freedom to do or say stupid things, but you can still protect that freedom and say that someone is a being a moron.

Nothing at all would have been lost if the maker had decided to not make the video, nothing at all. The world would've been a better place actually.

It is clear that murder is a bad thing, apparently it is still not clear that freedom of speech also contains within itself certain responsibilities. Freedom of speech can never be something you hide behind. This discussion is not about certain people being easily offended, we already know they exist and that they are silly. It is about pointlessly inciting their wrath, just because you can. We live in an actual world where things have consequences, not in some weird right/wrong utopia where voicing your opinion makes you a champion of free speech.